tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.comments2014-02-27T17:05:28.341+00:00Vowles the Green in KnowleGlenn Vowleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comBlogger1023125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-12146829116199333722013-07-23T15:58:50.399+01:002013-07-23T15:58:50.399+01:00No I don&#39;t give a damn. People have babies eve...No I don&#39;t give a damn. People have babies everyday the media doesn&#39;t praise those regular folks. Who cares about a royal baby ok she had a baby congrats let&#39;s move on!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-31868164510285638882013-01-10T14:49:08.033+00:002013-01-10T14:49:08.033+00:00I would ask if IT is delayed until age 14 in the p...I would ask if IT is delayed until age 14 in the proposed Steiner school because:<br /><br />a) There are sound eduction reasons as to why delaying the teaching of technologt makes sense,<br /><br />or<br /><br />b) Steiner believed that children should engage with such intellectual learning until at about fourteen years the astral body incarnates?<br /><br />In short, is this an evidence-based policy or a spiritual policy?Le Canard Noirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07565056022495154803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-50933049532949091832012-10-22T02:28:55.377+01:002012-10-22T02:28:55.377+01:00I haven&#39;t seen Marvin&#39;s &quot;I stand for ...I haven&#39;t seen Marvin&#39;s &quot;I stand for change&quot; leaflet but was intrigued reading his manifesto.<br /><br />This is the link to the online version of his manifesto - sorry for the mega long link: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/marvinrees/pages/65/attachments/original/1349864502/Marvin-Rees-Manifesto2.pdf?1349864502<br /><br />Ok it&#39;s all smeared with the usual politicians guff about &#39;change&#39; and &#39;values&#39; but there are a fair few concrete pledges in there he can be held to account for, should he be elected.<br /><br />As someone who&#39;s homeless and living out of bins I was pleased to see housing and food getting due prominence.<br /><br />There aren&#39;t that many empty residential buildings in Bristol. There may be more in future due to repossessions but it&#39;s not currently a big problem. So his pledge to do more to bring the few long-term empties there are back into use is a bit null. The city is increasingly blighted by empty commercial buildings, something Marvin doesn&#39;t appear to have noticed.<br /><br />As for making Bristol a zero food waste city what am I going to eat if the supermarkets stop filling their bins with tasty food?<br /><br />Of course I&#39;m not going to get to vote for Mayor as I don&#39;t have an address to register at. Oh well.soft centrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06186969765148317139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-89486729960092677332012-10-15T11:55:00.792+01:002012-10-15T11:55:00.792+01:00I don&#39;t think the Mayoral election has caught ...I don&#39;t think the Mayoral election has caught the public&#39;s attention at all.<br /><br />I&#39;m interested in this kind of thing and have read some of the candidates&#39; stuff but I could still only name two of them and have no idea what they stand for particularly.<br /><br />Expect a very low turnout.soft centrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06186969765148317139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-91578247718381834662012-09-30T08:54:15.312+01:002012-09-30T08:54:15.312+01:00Marvin is also the only main candidate whot suppor...Marvin is also the only main candidate whot supports the BRT destruction. Yet another example of his pro-corporate anti green space credentials. He is the most right wing candidate standing. <br /><br />Arry Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-22017005601094301992012-09-19T12:52:59.721+01:002012-09-19T12:52:59.721+01:00Yes, totally agree. Candidates who say that they w...Yes, totally agree. Candidates who say that they want to do something new but have had the opportunity for years to implement it shouldn&#39;t be taken at their word. How do we know that now is any different?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-89652167169365829192012-09-15T14:08:39.768+01:002012-09-15T14:08:39.768+01:00The Post exaggerates! Surely not the Post?The Post exaggerates! Surely not the Post?bskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479736494596245240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-53944741635920313792012-08-03T18:48:11.709+01:002012-08-03T18:48:11.709+01:00No, given that Prof Muller and I still disagree on...No, given that Prof Muller and I still disagree on many aspects of climate change what you say does not follow. Didnt you read his full views? <br /><br />The point I am making at the end of this post is that some people and organisations take their climate change scepticism so far that they fail to form their views on the basis of evidence and reasoning upon it. Prof Muller is not one of these people. <br /><br />As for &#39;now what?&#39; I hope everyone at all levels in our society and around the globe takes whatever urgent action they can to cut their carbon emissions as much as they practically can. The debate on the core science has actually been settled in my view for many years now (this is also the view of the scientific advisers to virtually all governments around the world and most if not all of the key scientific institutions).Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-32625924464602431542012-07-31T20:34:26.814+01:002012-07-31T20:34:26.814+01:00LOL, man who agrees with me is an intelligent man....LOL, man who agrees with me is an intelligent man. Man who disagrees with me is stupid and ill-informed.<br /><br />You&#39;re right about AGW, now what?Sainsbur McManusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-91286644721906298122012-07-13T12:18:44.172+01:002012-07-13T12:18:44.172+01:00Its now been revealed by The Post that there are t...Its now been revealed by The Post that there are two people shortlisted: currrent council leader Simon Cook; and current cabinet member Jon Rogers. <br />http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Lib-Dem-shortlist-Bristol-s-mayoral-elections/story-16528682-detail/story.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-84305431213652271022012-06-29T20:48:43.278+01:002012-06-29T20:48:43.278+01:00http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/featured-stories/ed...http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/featured-stories/edl-nazis/310-mickey-english-bayliss<br /><br />http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/featured-stories/edl-nazis/310-mickey-english-baylissDavid Gouldhttp://www.deep-trance.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-22700371661505446512012-06-05T23:33:56.189+01:002012-06-05T23:33:56.189+01:00Agreed. Also, the other studies I know of don&#39;...Agreed. Also, the other studies I know of don&#39;t seem to be showing a more positive result for Steiner education, though the results are sometimes misrepresented (or, to be charitable, misunderstood) by Steiner advocates. As for the narrow section, I don&#39;t think this is likely to change a lot with state-funding. The same type of families will still be choosing Steiner education, the kind of relatively privileged families whose children would do decently even with bad pedagogy. They can often help their children catch up. The kids have books and technology at home. Less privileged children would be worse off in a school that eschews these things. Just to mention some concrete examples.alicia hamberghttp://zooey.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-25314422380040184082012-06-05T20:27:37.128+01:002012-06-05T20:27:37.128+01:00I&#39;ll give it a few days to see if Joe, Steve a...I&#39;ll give it a few days to see if Joe, Steve and Simon (above) want to respond to my more recent comments. I will then try to summarise this discussion and publish a new blog post on it because some interesting points are beginning to emerge.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-52408373318327793292012-06-05T20:24:35.808+01:002012-06-05T20:24:35.808+01:00I agree that its much more complicated. One piece ...I agree that its much more complicated. One piece of research is nowhere near enough. One problems I have with the claim about achieving better results is that Steiner Schools really do not teach very large numbers of pupils compared to the total, and in the UK at least they are not operating in very many areas especially in poorer parts of cities. The pupils going to Steiner Schools are from a pretty narrow section of society I would suggest - perhaps the kind of pupils who would get decent results no matter what school they attended.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-41177736410667940832012-06-05T20:05:09.805+01:002012-06-05T20:05:09.805+01:00Joe wrote: &#39;For example, here&#39;s a piece of...Joe wrote: &#39;For example, here&#39;s a piece of research carried out in Adelaide University that suggests that students from the Mount Barker Steiner School significantly out-performed their peers from non-Steiner schools at university level in both science and humanities subjects:<br />http://www.bristolsteinerfreeschool.org.uk/files/7313/3819/4234/billwoodsmountbarkerstudy.pdf<br />Of course that could just be one good school, but at the very least it implies that the Steiner educational movement is capable of delivering good educational results.&#39; <br /><br />I&#39;m afraid it might not indicate that, or at least that it&#39;s a little bit more complicated. We&#39;ve discussed this matter on my blog and two of my blog readers have read the study Joe and the Bristol Steiner school refers to. See this comment and the one following it:<br /><br />http://zooey.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/perhaps-not-entirely-honest-about-bristol-steiner-free-school/#comment-16548 <br /><br />I think it&#39;s enough to cast doubt on whether Steiner students significantly outperform their peers. Perhaps they do (I personally doubt it), but the evidence so far isn&#39;t overwhelming.alicia hamberghttp://zooey.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-73620001909819299392012-06-02T17:01:38.507+01:002012-06-02T17:01:38.507+01:00Telling a child it rains to make the flowers grow ...Telling a child it rains to make the flowers grow indicates that it rains for a purpose - and is factually incorrect. It rained before flowers ever existed and it rains now mostly where there are no flowers at all eg over the oceans. Why make a statement that implies purpose when there is no evidence for it? This is the effect of Steiner ideology on your &#39;science&#39; - in place of the evidence. Far better in my view to use concepts such as up, down, high and low and encourage the child to investigate these through play eg with feathers, water, perhaps bubbles - both fun and stimulating learning related to the real world and not feeding them a point of view on it as your suggestion clearly does. Sound like someone who doesn&#39;t understand the first thing about early childhood learning and development or like someone who favours investigation of the real world instead of feeding kids fantasy?<br /><br />On the issue you raise of genuine, open debate - everything I&#39;ve said is genuine and reasonable and open I assure you. I&#39;ve asked you a perfectly reasonable question and intended my question to make a sharp point in an edgy way. I&#39;ve published your latest comment in which you say about me &quot;...you don&#39;t understand the first thing about early childhood learning and development...&quot; as well as publishing comments from others who have used rude language. It is, believe it or not, for me to decide what is genuine, open and reasonable and for me this does not necessarily exclude pointed language and statements that may insult. Its my blog and I&#39;m for robust debate - from me and from others.<br /><br />On technology its pretty clear that Steiner education ideologically (or perhaps arbitrarily) excludes certain kinds of technology until quite a late age compared to almost every other modern system of education in every country. This should speak volumes to you but it appears it does not - I think you are blinded by ideology. <br /><br />Clearly you (Steiner education) dont use the criterion of appropriate use of technology - unless you include as appropriate action making zero use of certain technologies at all for a high percentage of an individuals childhood. Certain things are, for you, black and white considerations and I&#39;m calling, much more reasonably in my view, for shades of grey (others in mainstream education would go much further than me). You assert that there are no ideological determinations of this nature but have in previous comments described an extremely vague, woolly ideology of child development that means the exclusion of certain technologies for extended periods of education - like Steiners ideas and framework you are not even internally consistent.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-59212710227240762312012-06-02T08:04:21.504+01:002012-06-02T08:04:21.504+01:00&quot;Telling a 4 yr old that it rains so that the...&quot;Telling a 4 yr old that it rains so that the flowers grow would hardly help their understanding!!&quot;<br /><br />I couldn&#39;t disagree more. It seems to me that you don&#39;t understand the first thing about early childhood learning and development.<br /><br />&quot;Did you get your science education from a Steiner School?&quot; <br /><br />There&#39;s really no need for disparaging remarks such as this. May I remind you of your entreaty: &quot;Genuine, open, reasonable debate is most welcome...&quot;<br /><br />&quot;The key is surely appropriate use of technologies...&quot;<br /><br />I agree<br /><br />&quot;...not denial of use until an ideologically determined age.&quot;<br /><br />I agree with this too. The issue is one of appropriateness. I would say it&#39;s developmentally inappropriate to introduce most technology into the teaching setting in the early years. Of course, pens and paper are technology, so clearly it&#39;s not a black-and-white decision. My assertion is that delaying the introduction of technology not only does no harm to a child&#39;s future ability to use various tools, but may in fact enhance it while also giving them an advantage in other measures later in life. A recent Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9266592/Bright-children-should-start-school-at-six-says-academic.html) talks of the work of Dr Richard House, who said: “The conventional wisdom is that naturally intelligent children should have their intellect fed and stimulated at a young age, so they are not held back.<br />“Yet these new empirical findings strongly suggest that exactly the opposite may well be the case, and that young children’s run-away intellect actually needs to be slowed down in the early years if they are not to risk growing up in an intellectually unbalanced way, with possible life-long negative health effects.”Simon Deeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565017206112882908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-77083009479506212522012-06-02T01:51:55.887+01:002012-06-02T01:51:55.887+01:00Sorry Simon but this isn&#39;t much better than th...Sorry Simon but this isn&#39;t much better than the original vague paragraph I referred to. In fact it makes things worse. Telling a 4 yr old that it rains so that the flowers grow would hardly help their undertstanding!! Did you get your science education from a Steiner School?<br /><br />Your attitude to technology is both worrying and revealing. First, technology is nothing more than all our practical knowledge for living, not just the machines/hardware/objects you appear to have in mind. To deny children experience of all the latest educational technologies from an early stage is therefore denying them all the latest practical knowledge for living. The key is surely appropriate use of technologies not denial of use until an ideologically determined age.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-69061217271830366632012-06-02T00:27:46.090+01:002012-06-02T00:27:46.090+01:00Steve
That the current state system can sometimes...Steve<br /><br />That the current state system can sometimes be bad in what it provides does not make Steiner Schools any better on the issues I&#39;ve listed and perhaps on other grounds also. And I&#39;ve not said what I&#39;ve said on the basis of hearsay mate - the source for what I say is the 2005 report &#39;Steiner Schools in England&#39; by Philip Woods, Martin Ashley and Glenys Woods, which pointed out how state school system practices could inform Steiner Schools AND vice versa. Why dont you check things before blurting out accusatory and false rubbish. I think an apology is in order though I somehow doubt one will be forthcoming.<br /><br />This blog is not here to defend the Green Party and this post is not based on any party line - its an independent blog as its header states - and its very puzzling that you bring up the issues you do in the rude manner that you do. They are hardly central to Green Party philosophy, policies or action - and in any political party you can find small groups of people who believe in wild and weird nonsense. Your rude manner and language do your argument, such as it is, no good whatsoever by the way.<br /><br />For your information I&#39;ve visited Bristol Waldorf School (a Steiner School) several times and observed lesson for a few days (though some years ago now). I&#39;ve long been an advocate of educating the whole person and have (and still do) perform my teaching accordingly. I&#39;ve also met and talked to parents who&#39;ve sent their kids to Steiner schools and talked to some pupils themselves (both ex-Steiner and those still in Steiner schools). I&#39;m not talking from an ill-informed viewpoint, though it appears from what you say that you are, which perhaps explaines why you are making many incorrect assumptions and assertions. By the way I&#39;ve not argued that Steiner Schools have no value - there are some practices of interest but Steiner&#39;s ideas on child development and his education framework are fundamentally flawed and they certainly should not be state funded. <br /> <br />Its pretty ignorant of you to bracket together all &#39;Greens&#39; in the sterotyped way you do. Has it not occurrred to you that it is best science and its evidence that backs the case for a green/sustainable society better than anything else? In any case what &#39;green&#39; is is still very much in development and has yet to pass tests of practice, experience and achieving significant power.<br /><br />Finally, on your admiration for &quot;helping each child&#39;s soul and spirit to grow&quot; as &#39;one of the most noble aims of education&#39; I&#39;d say the following. The soul or spirit in the sense that Steiner adherents mean it, may or may not exist - there is no evidence that it does. Its hardly something that education should be focussed on. Kids should be allowed to make up their own minds about whether they believe in souls/spirits - and the schools they go to should not have such supernatural ideas as an overarching philosophy informing all teaching and learning. The state should not fund schools based on any kind of supernatural belief because this is/should be a matter for individuals.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-59048743107755040322012-06-02T00:12:54.539+01:002012-06-02T00:12:54.539+01:00I&#39;m sorry if you feel your points on ideology ...I&#39;m sorry if you feel your points on ideology are not being understood - as you said the comments are quite lengthy and it&#39;s hard to keep everything in one&#39;s head when replying.<br /><br />On my &#39;vague&#39; statement - I&#39;m guessing you mean &quot;it is, as a rule of thumb, a mistake to introduce phenomena that do not readily occur in nature... Only when the child reaches an age at which they engage predominantly intellectually with a phenomenon should it be taught in an intellectual way&quot;.<br /><br />I&#39;ll try to be more lucid by way of example:<br /><br />When a 4 year old asks: &quot;why does it rain?&quot;, it&#39;s probably not helpful to give an answer that describes evaporation, weather systems and precipitation. Depending on the context it&#39;s probably more helpful to give answers like &quot;it rains so that the flowers grow&quot;. This is because the context in which the child is asking the question is much more informative as to the intention of their enquiry than are their words: they want to connect their observations to form an understanding the world. Over a number of such inquisitive episodes, the child and the adults they engage with build up a strong, shared and self-consistent system for understanding the world - even if that system is disconnected from scientific understanding. Using their shared metaphor for understanding the world, the adults act as midwives to the child&#39;s higher falculties of understanding, analysing, synthesising and creative thinking. In the early years (say up to 7), anything that detracts or distracts from the shared adult/child experience is a mistake in that it engages and develops the &#39;wrong&#39; faculties at the expense of development of the &#39;right&#39; ones.<br /><br />To link this to the Steiner teacher&#39;s role and training as you requested: disregarding for a moment the aspects of Steiner regarded by some as secretive, obsessive and/or disturbing, a Steiner teacher&#39;s approach to teaching the children (as learnt in their training) is highly rhythmical, structured and reverent. A lot of attention is paid to creating an environment in which the shared metaphor can be built, building the metaphor through song and stories, and then exploiting the metaphor for developmental ends.<br /><br />There is also a link to my insistence that introducing technology to early is a bad thing: technological teaching aids cannot build rapport with children, cannot know the true context needed to interpret the child&#39;s input, and cannot generate the genuine empathy required for a fulfilling, dare I say emotionally nourishing, interaction. Time spent using such technology in the early years distracts and detracts from the aim of building up the child&#39;s most important cognitive faculties.<br /><br />There&#39;s so much to say and it&#39;s unfortunate that I have to guess which small sample to write here. I hope you appreciate my efforts to clarify my thoughts for you... I&#39;m off to bed.Simon Deeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565017206112882908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-58948449367490357962012-06-01T23:05:24.740+01:002012-06-01T23:05:24.740+01:00Simon Deeley
That&#39;s a pretty cheeky suggestio...Simon Deeley<br /><br />That&#39;s a pretty cheeky suggestion - I&#39;m not your researcher and this blog is a personal, reasonably well informed, viewpoint not a research unit!! I suggest to look at what Ofsted, the Dept for Education and the many universities delivering PGCE and other teacher training are saying about literacy and technology education. Here&#39;s some links to get you going (though I suspect you dont really need them) - there&#39;s loads of material out there.<br /><br />http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/reading-six-how-best-schools-do-it-ofsted-0 <br /><br />http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/transforming-teaching-of-ict<br /><br />You just dont seem to get what I&#39;ve been saying about ideology/ies (see all my comments on here, including my last reply to Joe Evans). Are you deliberately ignoring what I write? I&#39;ve several times now indicated that from the outset I have referred to &#39;specific ideologies&#39;. I&#39;m not suggesting that we can or should take all ideologies out of education system (though some can be downplayed) and in fact I am referring only to that part of the education system that gets state funding. This is broadly the humanist stance (see link in original blog post!!). I&#39;m arguing that we should cut out situations where single, dominant ideologies exist in state funded schools eg that wwould mean no state funded so-called faith schools (I&#39;d put Steiner Schools in this group). I&#39;m arguing the benefits of ideological plurality in the education system from the point of view of promoting thinking, openness and reason.<br /><br />By the way I&#39;d be most interested in your view on child development, especially given your vague statement about it in a previous comment and especially in relation to the Steiner teacher&#39;s role and Steiner teacher training (see my last reply to Joe Evans).Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-77660605851230414712012-06-01T22:41:37.183+01:002012-06-01T22:41:37.183+01:00By the way, the bit about &quot;helping each child...By the way, the bit about &quot;helping each child&#39;s soul and spirit to grow&quot; is one of the most noble aims of education I&#39;ve heard. Better than the meaningless bollocks of most schools&#39; &quot;mission statements&quot; as they call them.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-53564473951566252362012-06-01T22:37:28.371+01:002012-06-01T22:37:28.371+01:00&quot; I know that some think that Steiner schools...&quot; I know that some think that Steiner schools management skills, organisation, administration, classroom management, secondary-school competency (particularly planning for and delivering differentiated lessons), assessment and record keeping may be questionable.&quot;<br /><br />The above comment is unworthy of you. I have seen plenty of god-awful teachers in state schools and many more are coming into the profession. Current methodology and Ofsted observation/inspection criteria are deeply anti-intellectual and turning teachers into uninspiring formulaic robots. Children are bored and leaving school with little of real value under their belts.<br /><br />Hearsay - like that above - is a cheap, cheap argument. For example, homeopathy, crazy ideas about GM and 9/11 conspiracy theories all found a home in the Greens. I can link to concrete evidence for those, not hearsay. Would that fairly describe your party? NO, so don&#39;t label Steiner schools on hearsay. <br /><br />I&#39;m surprised a Green doesn&#39;t see some value in Steiner schools. You seem blinded by the &#39;free school&#39; label. I&#39;d quite like to work in one and see how it&#39;s done before I come to a firm judgement but they seem progressive and healthy places to me.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-46273540152890252352012-06-01T22:12:30.338+01:002012-06-01T22:12:30.338+01:00Joe Evans
I&#39;ve published your latest comment ...Joe Evans<br /><br />I&#39;ve published your latest comment but you&#39;ll find I&#39;ve really already answered your point about ideology/ies (see my response to Simon Deeley&#39;s two rather lengthy comments). You really should read what I write more carefully - I did not say that schools should be based on ideologies, in fact I said they should not be based on any specific ideology. It&#39;s an impossibility to have schools completely free of all any kind(s) of ideology so this is rather obviously not what I&#39;m arguing for. <br /><br />What should be avoided is teaching kids in accordance with a guiding, overarching, underlying, single ideology. Steiner methods for instance rely on a single theory of child development - and this has been questioned. Some Steiner teachers have an unquestioning attitude toward anthroposophy - and this too has been criticized. Its much healthier for each school community have an ethos and mission that emerges from the interaction of competing ideologies present amongst the management, unions, teachers, departments, governors, local authority, central govt, local community, pupils and parents...<br /><br />Its really interesting that part of your justification for Steiner education is that they can get good results. This is a rather conventional view for someone purporting to argue for a rather &#39;different&#39; way of schooling/educating/teaching kids!! You may be right about results - but why kids get the results they do may be down to all sorts of reasons, not least parental education levels, support and wealth...I&#39;d say arguing for Steiner schools on the basis of results is actually not at all what Steiner education is supposed to be about (see Steve&#39;s ealier comment referring to &#39;state school exam fodder factories&#39;)! In fact its rather puzzling to me that anyone into Steiner education would want to be tied in to current govt thinking by seeking govt money.<br /><br />I know Steiner education fairly well and was actually offered a job as a science teacher at the Bristol Waldorf School way back (late 1980&#39;s I think), before it moved from near the top of Jacobs Wells Rd. I was most put off by the very odd experience I was given on observing some of the lessons (each one beginning with a mini ceremonial candle lighting and strange poem about natural objects) plus the distinct lack of openness and clarity when I naively asked what Steiner philosophy was all about. In the few decades or more since then I&#39;ve found out a lot more. The Steiner approach stems from its particular view on child development and from this comes the educational theory, teaching methods and content. Do you, Joe, believe, for instance, that humans possess an innate spirit that has passed through various lives and which will, after passing through this world go back to the spirit world from where it will be reincarnated? Some Steiner teacher training I&#39;m aware of sees the teacher as having a &#39;sacred task&#39; and primarily wants each &#39;child&#39;s soul and spirit&#39; to be helped to grow - is this your view Joe?<br /><br />My opposition to state funding for Steiner schools is in the main because I&#39;m opposed to any school that has a single ideology behind it. I do have quite a large number of other questions and concerns in addition to this though. In addition to concerns I&#39;ve expressed about the approach to literacy, technology and science I know that some think that Steiner schools management skills, organisation, administration, classroom management, secondary-school competency (particularly planning for and delivering differentiated lessons), assessment and record keeping may be questionable.Glenn Vowleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392000659876958930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36190173.post-83396362798446280682012-06-01T21:58:59.501+01:002012-06-01T21:58:59.501+01:00Glenn,
Thanks for your reply.
It would be very h...Glenn,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply.<br /><br />It would be very helpful if you could point me to some of the evidence on reading before age 7 and use of technology you refer to as I&#39;d be very interested to read it.<br /><br />The reason I&#39;m not campaigning to take ideologies out of our education system is because I believe it to be impossible (and undesirable) to do so - isn&#39;t &#39;an educational system without ideology&#39; itself and ideology?Simon Deeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565017206112882908noreply@blogger.com